The accused's actions, as revealed in the charge-sheet, prima facie constituted a 'terrorist act' as defined in the UA(P) Act, and the accused was not entitled to bail based on the provisions of section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act.

JUDGMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - Heard Mr. Hafuza A. Ahmedi, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.B. Raju, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury and Mr. Sathya Narayana, learned standing counsel for National Investigating Agency (NIA for short).

2. The appellant herein is the accused in Spl. NIA Case No. 2/2020 arising out of NIA Case No. RC-13/2019/NIA-GUW. This appeal under section 21(4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 13.07.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA), Assam, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Judge" for brevity) in Misc. Case No. 18/2020 arising out of Spl. NIA Case No. 2/2020, thereby rejecting the prayer for grant of bail.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed 3 (three) bound paper- books containing 1278 pages of materials purportedly supplied to the appellant along with the charge-sheet. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant has also filed a written synopsis of argument consisting of 43 pages, supported by 3 (three) volumes of convenience compilation No. I and II consisting of 957 pages as well as convenience compilation-III consisting of 122 pages. The respondent's side has filed their notes of submission consisting of 6 pages, against which the appellant's side has filed written notes of submissions in rejoinder consisting of 43 pages. Apart from hearing oral argument, the Court has also perused the memo of appeal consisting of 144 pages and affidavit- in- opposition filed by the respondent consisting of 123 pages. It is mentioned at the outset that although the Court has considered all the materials in its entirety, but in this order, the Court has recorded only the truncated submissions of the learned senior counsel for both sides to avoid burdening the order with voluminous reference materials submitted.

4. The charge-sheet reveals that an FIR, being Chandmari P.S. Case No. 1688/2019 dated 13.12.2019 was registered under sections 120B, 124A, 153B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ['UA(P) Act' for short]. Subsequently, in compliance of order no. 11011/62/2019/ NIA dated 14.12.2019 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, RC-13/ 2019/NIA-GUW dated 14.12.2019 [KMSS- CPI (Maoist) link case] was re-registered at the NIA Guwahati Branch Office under the same sections as earlier. It was indicated therein that the purpose was to investigate Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti ('KMSS' for short) CPI (Maoist) links, and conspiracy to create enmity between different groups of people on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language and did acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, using passage of Citizenship Amendment Bill in Parliament as an opportunity, using visible representations and spoken words and thus endangering the security and sovereignty of the State which is prejudicial to the national integration. During investigation, accused person nos. 1 to 4 were respectively arrested on 17.12.2019, 07.01.2020, 23.01.2020 and 07.01.2020, and that they are presently lodged at Central Jail, Guwahati.

5. Materials collected including statement of witnesses recorded during investigation reveal that the appellant herein was instrumental in sending around 15 (fifteen) members of KMSS in batches of 5 (five) each for training to camps run by CPI (Maoist), where they were trained, amongst others, in their ideology, to handle arms, explosives, etc., and in tactics of mass mobilisation to carry out seditious activities in the garb of protest activities. In the charge-sheet, reference has been made to the statements of witnesses, video footages as well as the transcription of public speeches and intercepted phone calls in order to project that all the accused persons had conspired with each other and that they had coordinated wit